VBD2 is closed. Please go to https://vbd3.co.uk instead.

Veteran regular wheel collector Bob Willis was selling this 4c Triumph on ebay and he lured me in as he's done a multitude of times in the past. This particular Triumph has the tire/wheel from the 66c Harley Davidson motorcycle up front. I believe it was JP/Tinman who voiced skepticism about the copper color Triumph with the Harley tires and wheels because of how the Harley wheels are beefier/fatter than the Triumph wheels. Indeed I can tell you that this tire most decidedly does NOT spin on the front. There are areas where the tire has been indented by impingement from the metal fender supports. The axle seems just fine on that front end. For what it's worth, I can tell you that this casting is the same casting listed in Stannard for the copper-color variation.

Any chance of a "head on" photograph showing how the wheel fits between the front forks?

Ask and you shall receive! The forks are somewhat flared and you can see some of the scars on the tire from someone forcing a spin at some point.

That’s an extremely interesting piece, Greg, and I’m sure that, after your run-in with that 69b Hatra, you’ve satisfied yourself that the front axle is factory peened. (Nice to see you posting regularly again, by the way.)
As you say, this does seem to disprove Joe’s (Tinman’s) contention that a 66b front wheel could not been fitted to a 4c without completely destroying the front forks. My only concern would be my standard gripe about many unusual models (e.g. two-line green Pickfords) which is that it is mint. Whilst it may well be that it was spotted and saved by a collector at the time it came out, I would be happier if it were even slightly playworn. On the other hand, I can also see that its pristine condition allows easy assessment of the front axle, so i suppose it cuts both ways.
We need to consider why just one wheel is from the 66b and not all three. The implication has to be that the rear wheels were fitted at a different time to the front wheel, but that strikes me as being a bit odd because I have in the back of my mind an old discussion in which we concluded that the 4c, 36b and 66b were all riveted up before painting. (IIRC, the paint covering of the baseplate rivets on these models is proof of that.) If that is true, then there is no good reason for the front wheel to differ from the other two, which brings us into the realm of the lunchbox special, except it’s nothing special to look at. (Well, it is for us as sharp-eyed collectors, but to the man on the Clapham omnibus, it looks bog standard.)
I not at all sure that any of the musings above actually lead anywhere, but hopefully they’ll provide food for thought for other members and so lead to further contributions.
Let’s hope another turns up so that it can be verified and added to the variation table!

This one is far from mint condition Hugh. If you look at the two side photos you'll find plenty of paint chips on this one. I've listed it as C-8 condition in my book.

matchbox_n_molars wrote:This one is far from mint condition Hugh. If you look at the two side photos you'll find plenty of paint chips on this one. I've listed it as C-8 condition in my book.

My mistake. (Things are a bit quiet at work today, so I typed up my post in Word and then quickly cut and pasted it into the reply box, which means that I didn't actually have the photographs in front of me whilst I was writing.)
In my book, the fact that it isn't mint makes it all the more likely to be genuine.

This is an enlightening discovery. From my own experiments, I know the Harley wheel and tire has to be forced onto the Triumph. It causes damage (as shown) to the tire and forces the forks to be spread apart (bent outwards) and then bent back in at the tips in order to install and secure the axle.

It would seem counter productive to have to force the wheels into the model's openings and then have to apply more force (and bend more metal) to insert and secure the axles. Once the wheels are secured on the model, it would be obvious that it would not roll.

This problem makes me wonder why experienced Lesney workers would continue to assemble models in this manner. But, I guess stranger things have happened. The model shown here is a negative variation (IMHO) and does not strike me as something assembled by anything other than accident.

From my observations, the wheels and tires that were used on the Harley and the YYs were more common than the wheel and tire used on the Triumph. I feel it's more likely a stray wheel that got into the (wrong) bin rather than something assembled this way on purpose. In other words, it's the same as model with three wheels of one diameter and one lone smaller or larger wheel.

The entire concept of the copper Triumph with the larger wheels/tires is one of a mistaken identity (an error) and is itself a negative variant. I've always felt that not enough of them exist to warrant it being a variation. When you factor in the whole mistaken identification of the Triumph body casting for that of the Harley (along with the ultra rare low number of survivors), it's a model that has always had more questions than answers. Questions that will probably never be answered with any certainty.

I do not see this model in question as any kind of missing link, just a negative variation. Many thanks to Greg for posting his photos of this interesting model.

Idris wrote: As you say, this does seem to disprove Joe’s (Tinman’s) contention that a 66b front wheel could not been fitted to a 4c without completely destroying the front forks.

I don't think I commented that it would "completly destroy the forks" (but maybe I did). Regardless, my intended comment was that it would stretch apart the front forks and then bend them back together (at the tips) to force the axle in place. The result is misshappen front forks and a wheel that will not roll. That (to me) ruins the model.

It would also slow down the assembly line as it would be very tedious and time consuming to have to force each wheel into place, then force the tips of the forks down upon the wheel and align the holes to install the axle. If all the models coming down the line had to have this much attention, things would quickly bog down and the error would probably be discovered. This could account why the copper Triumph is so rare ... perhaps the error was quickly discovered and the assembly process halted. That's just another unanswered question.

Apologies if you think I may have misreported you, Joe - no offence intended.
I'm wondering whether simply using the axle peening machine on the front axle might not have been enough to force the bottom of the forks back into shape.

In light of the front wheel not turn freely due to this incorrect configuration, I would suggest that this model would have very quickly become a neglected toy which spent most of it's life a loner in the bottom of the Toy box which may account for it's reasonable condition. IMHO